Should Stephen Harper resign?

[bleeding heart]

Aren't we all victims of it? It's a wonder any of us can think straight given the steady diet of misinformation we're given. You really have to wonder if or when the government will finally do something about it.

Well, hopefully domestic spying--which only proves how important we are to the government, when you think about it!--is a strong first step in curtailing the baleful influence of the Left.

[scribblet]

John Robson is a conservative commentator: http://www.ottawasun.com/author/john-robson

David Sachs is the head of the Pontiac Conservative Riding Association: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Stephen+Harper+puts+Conservatives+bind/9211218/story.html

There's two conservatives that think Harper should step down. So I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong.

So maybe a few do, but not in any of the EDAs I hear from. I belong to a private group consisting of riding EDAs, it certainly is not an idea supported there.

[cybercoma]

Michael Chong is trying to pass a bill to limit the power of the PM. You can't tell me that there isn't discontent in the party. Brent Rathgeber quit the party because he was so fed up. It's there, even if you haven't noticed yet. I don't suspect it will fall apart before the next election, but there's a reckoning coming. The united Right may fracture.

[g_bambino]

Michael Chong is trying to pass a bill to limit the power of the PM.

Actually, it, among other things, limits the powers of all party leaders; so, it only affects the prime minister indirectly, though not insignificantly. It actually proposes pretty well what I have been saying for the last little while should be done: give caucus the ability to replace the party leader. It was the shifting of that task to solely the party membership that rendered MPs essentially useless, thereby undermining the functioning of responsible government.

[scribblet]

Actually, it, among other things, limits the powers of all party leaders; so, it only affects the prime minister indirectly, though not insignificantly. It actually proposes pretty well what I have been saying for the last little while should be done: give caucus the ability to replace the party leader. It was the shifting of that task to solely the party membership that rendered MPs essentially useless, thereby undermining the functioning of responsible government

I don't agree with taking away the right of the membership to vote, that is more democratic then only the caucus voting for him. Not to mention that he does not have the support because a resolution proposing some of these changes was defeated at their last convention.

Recall isn't a bad idea but Chong is setting the bar too low which would allow for abuse.

[jacee]

Not to mention that he does not have the support because a resolution proposing some of these changes was defeated at their last convention.

He may have enough support among MP's to pass the bill.

[Spiderfish]

Harper the control freak knows this so my guess is whatever succession plan exists is thrown together in secret by people well outside of the lines of power.

If a succession plan is simply "thrown together" by people outside of the lines of power, how can it hold any weight? Are you suggesting a coups? Things don't work that way in a healthy democracy.

[scribblet]

He may have enough support among MP's to pass the bill.

He might but don't forget the other parties who don't seem to be supporting it.

IMO it would be a coup of sorts if the caucus decided after a couple of years they really didn't like their leader so lets get a petition together. This type of action should require more than a 15% petition, and more than a 50% +1 vote, the bar is too low.

[waldo]

IMO it would be a coup of sorts if the caucus decided after a couple of years they really didn't like their leader so lets get a petition together. This type of action should require more than a 15% petition, and more than a 50% +1 vote, the bar is too low.

what's the problem? It's done regularly in some provinces... Premier Redford in Alberta just went through it in the last week.

[Spiderfish]

what's the problem? It's done regularly in some provinces... Premier Redford in Alberta just went through it in the last week.

The link provided indicates that overall the party is satisfied with their leader in Alberta. Of course, they were satisfied with Stelmach as well...

I'm not sure I would go so far as to defining a leadership review as an attempt at overthrowing the leader.

[cybercoma]

I don't agree with taking away the right of the membership to vote

The membership does vote. They vote for who gets the party nomination in their constituency. They vote again for an MP in federal elections. Therefore, the party membership has plenty of opportunity to vote in ways that will affect the leadership review.

[cybercoma]

IMO it would be a coup of sorts

It's not a coup at all. That's how our system works. The Prime Minister needs to have and maintain the support of Parliament to stay on as Prime Minister. The party leaders need to maintain the support of their democratically elected MPs to remain in their position. There is no "coup of sorts" about it. Edited December 1, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

what's the problem? It's done regularly in some provinces... Premier Redford in Alberta just went through it in the last week.

It's also done in Australia and Britain.

[On Guard for Thee]

I find it not a surprise that this would arise from within the current Conservative government. I think underneath the ever thinning facade the party has come to the realization that the captain is running the ship onto the rocks. The popular vote in the latest byelections is just the most recent indication.

[Shady]

It's also done in Australia and Britain.

Why does it matter what other countries do?

[BubberMiley]

Why does it matter what other countries do?

Because they are examples of parliamentary systems just like ours.

[Shady]

Because they are examples of parliamentary systems just like ours.

Do we have to do what some other, not all, parliamentary systems do?

[eyeball]

Do we have to do what some other, not all, parliamentary systems do?

No but we'd be pretty short-sighted not to consider adopting certain things that might make our's work better.

Edited December 1, 2013 by eyeball

[BubberMiley]

Do we have to do what some other, not all, parliamentary systems do?

The rules are the rules. You can't change them to prop up the guy you want in power.

[eyeball]

I find it not a surprise that this would arise from within the current Conservative government. I think underneath the ever thinning facade the party has come to the realization that the captain is running the ship onto the rocks. The popular vote in the latest byelections is just the most recent indication.

Aren't the changes being proposed also directed at making a more seaworthy ship as much as trying to improve a Captain's performance?

As for many of the rocks they both drive into many could be avoided by keeping a better lookout. I'd saturate the government with monitors and assign that job to the public but that's just me.

[Shady]

No but we'd be pretty short-sighted not to consider adopting certain things that might make our's work better.

That's fine. The merits of the proposal are what matters. Not what countries have or haven't adopter it or something similar.

[eyeball]

What might matter is how the changes have affected things in other similar countries. That's why we should look at them. Not availing ourselves of a look would be negligent.

[On Guard for Thee]

Aren't the changes being proposed also directed at making a more seaworthy ship as much as trying to improve a Captain's performance?

As for many of the rocks they both drive into many could be avoided by keeping a better lookout. I'd saturate the government with monitors and assign that job to the public but that's just me.

Not to belabor the metaphor but I would say, especially in this case, that the Captains performance. especially of late, has been shoddy and and any changes to the system could deal more effectively with such failings would I hope be welcomed by all parties. We shall see what comes from the RCMP investigation of the senate scandal but the rocks in this case I suspect should have been clearly visible to even the least salty crew members.

[eyeball]

Ah but the Captains are fully accountable for the failings of their crews, it's up to them to ensure the ship is run tightly.

If we only had a doctor who could declare the Captain unfit for duty. How many boards of inquiries into these disasters do we need before concluding, recommending and making the necessary changes?

In any case, I'd still dry-dock the ship, subject it to a thorough steamship inspection and like some of the boats I operate, refit the thing with cameras and black-box sort of like the ones DFO make me use.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ah but the Captains are fully accountable for the failings of their crews, it's up to them to ensure the ship is run tightly.

If we only had a doctor who could declare the Captain unfit for duty. How many boards of inquiries into these disasters do we need before concluding, recommending and making the necessary changes?

In any case, I'd still dry-dock the ship, subject it to a thorough steamship inspection and like some of the boats I operate, refit the thing with cameras and black-box sort of like the ones DFO make me use.

Sounds good to me. I spent most of my working life talking to a cockpit voice recorder and it keeps you on your toes when you know that if you screw up the last 30 minutes of what was said will be available for all the world to hear. Maybe one of those in the PMO would be a good place to start.